INDURA S.A. v. ENGINEERED CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL INC.

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit North Carolina Middle District INDURA S.A. v. ENGINEERED CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL INC.

INDURA S.A. v. ENGINEERED CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL INC.

Plaintiff:	INDURA S.A.
Defendant:	ENGINEERED CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL INC.
Case Number:	1:2010cv00457
Filed:	June 11, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	NCMD Office
County:	Alamance
Nature of Suit:	Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 1, 2011	Filing 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION - MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 09/01/2011. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant ECII's Motion to Strike Expert Reports and Opinions (Docket Entry 19 ) is DENIED; however , as alternative sanctions for Plaintiff Indura's failure to make a timely, proper "Disclosure of Expert Testimony": 1) on or before September 16, 2011, Defendant ECII may supplement its own "Disclosure of Expert Testimony" t o account for the opinions in the reports of Jorquera Encina and Quintana; 2) Plaintiff Indura shall pay any premium Defendant ECII incurs to obtain such expert analysis and related reporting on an expedited basis; 3) Plaintiff Indura shall reimburse Defendant ECII for the translation of the reports of Jorquera Encina and Quintana; 4) on or before September 16, 2011, Defendant ECII shall serve Plaintiff Indura with a statement of the above-referenced expedited, expert analysis/report preparation fee (if any) andtranslation costs, as well as any other expenses, including attorney's fees, Defendant ECII incurred due to Plaintiff Indura's failure to make a timely, proper "Disclosure of Expert Testimony"; 5) on or before Sep tember 30, 2011, Plaintiff Indura shall file a memorandum of not more than ten pages showing cause why it and/or its attorneys should not have to pay any expenses identifiedby Defendant ECII (other than any expedited, expert analysis/report preparati on fee and translation costs, payment of which the Court already has found appropriate), and, if Plaintiff Indura contests the reasonableness of any such additional expenses, it shall include within its memorandum a certification that it has attempte d to confer in good faith with Defendant ECII about that subject; 6) on or before October 14, 2011, Defendant ECII may file a response of not more than ten pages to Plaintiff Indura's foregoing memorandum; and7) on or before October 21, 2011, Pl aintiff Indura may file a reply of not more than five pages to any such response by Defendant ECII. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant ECII's Motion to Strike Rebuttal Expert Reports and Opinions (Docket Entry 25 ) is GRANTED, that Lorenzos r eport is STRICKEN, and that his testimony is EXCLUDED as a sanction for Plaintiff Indura's violation of thisCourt's Local Rule 26.1(c). IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant ECII's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 30 ) be DENIED.(Taylor, Abby)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 1, 2011

Filing 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION - MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 09/01/2011. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant ECII's Motion to Strike Expert Reports and Opinions (Docket Entry 19 ) is DENIED; however , as alternative sanctions for Plaintiff Indura's failure to make a timely, proper "Disclosure of Expert Testimony": 1) on or before September 16, 2011, Defendant ECII may supplement its own "Disclosure of Expert Testimony" t o account for the opinions in the reports of Jorquera Encina and Quintana; 2) Plaintiff Indura shall pay any premium Defendant ECII incurs to obtain such expert analysis and related reporting on an expedited basis; 3) Plaintiff Indura shall reimburse Defendant ECII for the translation of the reports of Jorquera Encina and Quintana; 4) on or before September 16, 2011, Defendant ECII shall serve Plaintiff Indura with a statement of the above-referenced expedited, expert analysis/report preparation fee (if any) andtranslation costs, as well as any other expenses, including attorney's fees, Defendant ECII incurred due to Plaintiff Indura's failure to make a timely, proper "Disclosure of Expert Testimony"; 5) on or before Sep tember 30, 2011, Plaintiff Indura shall file a memorandum of not more than ten pages showing cause why it and/or its attorneys should not have to pay any expenses identifiedby Defendant ECII (other than any expedited, expert analysis/report preparati on fee and translation costs, payment of which the Court already has found appropriate), and, if Plaintiff Indura contests the reasonableness of any such additional expenses, it shall include within its memorandum a certification that it has attempte d to confer in good faith with Defendant ECII about that subject; 6) on or before October 14, 2011, Defendant ECII may file a response of not more than ten pages to Plaintiff Indura's foregoing memorandum; and7) on or before October 21, 2011, Pl aintiff Indura may file a reply of not more than five pages to any such response by Defendant ECII. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant ECII's Motion to Strike Rebuttal Expert Reports and Opinions (Docket Entry 25 ) is GRANTED, that Lorenzos r eport is STRICKEN, and that his testimony is EXCLUDED as a sanction for Plaintiff Indura's violation of thisCourt's Local Rule 26.1(c). IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant ECII's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 30 ) be DENIED.(Taylor, Abby)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: INDURA S.A. v. ENGINEERED CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL INC.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: INDURA S.A.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: ENGINEERED CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL INC.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?